Two-thirds of criminals jailed immediately after trial on drug charges have more than ten previous convictions, it emerged today.

The proportion rises to a staggering 68 per cent when looking at offenders jailed for crimes relating to the hardest drugs, like crack and heroin.

Tory MP Philip Davies, who uncovered the statistics, called for longer sentences to ensure criminals are off the streets and have time to beat their addictions before release.

But Labour attacked the Government, claiming the data showed justice reforms were failing.

Mr Davies told the Standard: “What I want to see are longer prison sentences. It’s not sending them to prison that’s causing the problem, it’s letting them out. A drug addict, for example, may get sentenced at a magistrates’ court to six months, then serve only three. That’s not enough time to get off drugs.”

The figures were released in a Parliamentary answer that showed last year 807 of the 1,242 drug offenders jailed immediately after trial in England and Wales had more than ten previous convictions.

Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said: “People looking at these figures will question whether the justice system, after five years of a Tory and Lib-Dem government is up to scratch.

“It is a scandal that so many offenders on drug charges are committing multiple offences. This government has no solutions, only excuses.”

For class A drugs, 398 of the 585 offenders immediately jailed had more than ten convictions. A further 94 had between six and ten.

Meanwhile, 366 of the 601 offenders sent to prison for class B drug crimes had more than ten convictions.

For class C drugs, 43 of the 56 offenders jailed had more than ten convictions.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said the Government had put in place “tough sentences” for drug offences.

He added that previous convictions are taken into account by the courts and do lead to more severe punishment, and said: “These re-offending figures again bear out the need for our newly-introduced reforms.

“Too many criminals are walking the streets unsupervised and returning to crime.

Mr Davies told the Standard: “What I want to see are longer prison sentences. It’s not sending them to prison that’s causing the problem, it’s letting them out." yes indeed but then we all know whatever sentence they get is total fiction, they always walk out of prison after having done half - so are the Judges doubling the sentences to begin with? If you were a Judge you would KNOW that whatever sentence you declare is really halved in reality! But sadly these Judges have "guidelines" and they cannot "Double" the sentence as I am sure Tory MP Philip Davies, would like what a shame

The amount of time actually served : we've just seen Gary Glitter/Paul Gadd sentenced to 16 years yet he'll be eligible for parole after 9, only just more than half the sentence. Once convicted, you serve what you're given. No time off for good behaviour, that should be expected. Time added on for bad behaviour should be the case. Want to watch TV? Want a radio to listen to? Earn it, don't see it as a "human right". Make prison a place to be feared, not somewhere to meet up with your mates.

How many times do we see inconsistencies in sentencing? One court may give a custodial sentence yet another may not, for very similar offences and offender histories. Sentencing guide lines should be stricter to avoid this. Many police forces give new PC's attachments to various units as part of their training. Make new judges and magistrates spend a week going out with patrols, SOCO, paramedics etc so they can see the upset and devastation that crime causes, to help them concentrate their minds when passing sentence.

The Home Office's own figures show that longer custodial sentences result in reduced reoffending rates. This is due to probation services, drug rehabilitation etc having time to engage with offenders. The problem is that on release the offender goes straight back to the environment they came from, but at least they have some knowledge and capability of avoiding further criminal activity. You'll hear many differing figures as to how much it costs to keep someone in prison per year but no one seems to have added up the cost of each offence they commit, from property stolen/damaged, cost of police attending, investigating, building a case, cost of prosecution and defence, running the court hearing, cost to insurers. Whilst they're in prison, they won't be committing further offences. Let's hear it for the victims, they didn't volunteer to be a victim but the offender chose to be a criminal.

Intervention coming too late : the short sharp shock. No one wants to criminalise a young person but I feel that too often they are not made to face up to the effect of their behaviour by being given Community Resolutions, Cautions etc. Early intervention is the best way to pull a young person back onto the "straight and narrow". If they continue and become "criminalised" then it certainly isn't the system that's done that. It's their behaviour that has criminalised them. If we accept that 10 is the age of criminal responsibility, then we should accept that there will be times when a custodial sentence (be it YOI, Borstal or whatever) is the only appropriate sentence for some young people. Yes, we have a duty of care to them, but we seem to be forgetting a duty of care to their victims.